Is Lenin relevant in our age of catastrophes?

2nd September 2024

Leave a Commenton Is Lenin relevant in our age of catastrophes?

“Our daunting task of recreating a global, mass socialist movement will have to occur in an era of catastrophe.”

The Lenin 100 volunteers report on the lecture given by Paul Le Blanc, academic and author of “Lenin Responding to Catastrophe, Forging Revolution”, opening the Lenin 100 series.

100s recently attended the first online lecture as part of the Lenin 100 series, introduced by the acclaimed  US writer, historian and activist Paul Le Blanc.

In the talk, Paul Le Blanc made an impressive case for the importance of Lenin’s ideas to overturning capitalism and imperialism in a world defined by crises. Applying Lenin’s steadfast focus on expanding the workers’ movement and growing class consciousness to the world today, Le Blanc urged the rebirth of a global socialist movement capable of averting climate catastrophe and ending the era of permanent war, positioning Lenin not just as a historical figure worthy of study, but a cutting-edge revolutionary whose ideas are of enduring relevance.

Vital to understanding Le Blanc’s ideas is that he sees Lenin as a pivotal figure not only in the history of the modern communist movement and the Russian Revolution, but indeed the history of the whole 20th century.

As we confront imperialist wars, climate catastrophe, and the rise of right-wing authoritarians like Trump and Modi, Le Blanc posed the thought-provoking question to the audience of ‘What would Lenin do?’

Nonetheless, he cautioned against treating Lenin’s analysis as dogma and warned clearly against viewing Marxist theory as a “passive contemplation” of societal injustices. Instead, it must be seen as a guide to action, grounded in historical materialism – in Le Blanc’s own words, “Lenin refused to detach social, economic, and political analysis from an activist engagement, from the restless and insistent question: what is to be done?”

He then went on to consider how Lenin’s focus on building working class consciousness, the mass workers’ movement and socialist currents lines up with the modern world, with so many working-class institutions eroded after decades of neo-liberalism,

Interestingly, Le Blanc rejected the reductive opposition some economistic elements on the Left of “class” versus “identity.”

Instead, quoting the legendary biographer of Malcolm X, US socialist George Breitman, he highlighted that the relevance for class politics in the 21st century comes from integrating both, saying: “The radicalization of the worker can begin off the job as well as on. It can begin from the fact that the worker is a woman as well as a man; that the worker is Black or Chicano or a member of some other oppressed minority as well as white; that the worker is a father or mother whose son can be drafted; that the worker is young as well as middle-aged or about to retire.  If we grasp the fact that the working class is stratified and divided in many ways – the capitalists prefer it that way – then we will be better able to understand how the radicalization will develop among workers and how to intervene more effectively.”

Nonetheless, he did not shy away from acknowledging the scale of the challenge facing socialists in our current age of catastrophe, recognising that “Our own daunting task of recreating a global mass socialist movement will have to occur in an era of catastrophe – the destabilisation and unravelling of the global environment and a consequent wave of economic calamities and mass fatalities.”

Solidarity with campaigns rooted in social justice – often with the advancing of transitional demands relating to them – such as the Black Lives Matter movement and international actions against the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, are in fact key to re-building the workers’ movement, and growing class consciousness, in the period ahead.

We need to understand that it is through such campaigns that masses are mobilised and radicalised as workers find out that their mass pressure can force reform and change lives.

Le Blanc also drew a clear and interesting parallel between Lenin’ struggles with “super-militant” Bolshevik’s intent on isolating the party from mass electoral activity and reform campaigns, and contemporary leftists “scoffing at reform where revolution is needed”.

Also central to Le Blanc’s presentation was also a recognition that impending climate catastrophe will become increasingly central to socialist efforts throughout the world – and that a real, socialist Green New Deal is necessary to our survival.

He argued that such a transitional approach combines multiple goals, and can be key to our success, saying  “people before profit, decent homes and good communities for all, health care for all, education for all, mass transit and communication systems for all, nourishing food, access to cultural and recreational nourishment, creative outlets, genuine liberty and real justice for all” our the demands we must be making,

We give the final words to our speaker. Closing the event, he argued that “As we strive to advance that process, there is much to learn from the ideas, the insights, and the experiences of freedom fighters who went before.  Lenin – with all of his accomplishments and insights, all of his mistakes and heroic efforts – is among the freedom fighters we should look to.” Absolutely.

---

• You can watch the event back here or listen back here.
• Get a ticket for the whole monthly Lenin 100 series here.
• Paul Le Blanc will be coming to London for an in-person event on Wednesday 6th November, the day after the US Presidential elections- register and info here.

Money for War, but not for much else

2nd September 2024

1 Commenton Money for War, but not for much else

“One manifesto commitment is absolved from scrutiny – the pledge to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP. Keir Starmer’s military budget commitment remains uncosted – an irksome outlier amongst the Chancellor’s non-negotiable fiscal rules.”

Fiscal responsibility dominated Labour’s election campaign, just as the £22 billion hole in public finances is now dominating government spending plans. Carol Turner asks why the Prime Minister’s ‘serious commitment’ to increasing military spending to 2.5% of GDP is the only promise that goes uncosted and unchallenged.

As revelations of a black hole in public finances and chaotic Conservative mismanagement emerge, the Big Question remains. How will the Labour government pay for its policies?

The two-child benefit cap stays; winter fuel payments are scrapped for all but the poorest pensioners; and social housing tenants face 10 years of above-inflation rent increases. Every day we’re warned that the Chancellor’s autumn statement will be grim.

Remarkable then that one manifesto commitment is absolved from scrutiny – the pledge to raise military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product. Keir Starmer’s military budget commitment remains uncosted – an irksome outlier amongst the Chancellor’s non-negotiable fiscal rules.

There has been

• nothing said about how much it would cost
• nothing asked about where the money might come from, and
• absolutely nothing acknowledged about what cutbacks it’s likely to mean for other government departments.

Labour’s manifesto undertook to conduct a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to ‘set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence’. Within two weeks in office Keir Starmer announced the SDR, conducted by Lord George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General, and overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey, who will report to parliament in the first half of 2025.

A foretaste of what 2.5% GDP will mean

Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Director Paul Johnson was a rare exception to the silence on costing military spending. He questioned Rishi Sunak’s commitment to 2.5% in a Times article in April, objecting to ‘the misleading and opaque way in which the additional [military] spending was presented’.

‘When it wanted to make it look big, the government claimed it would boost spending by £75 billion; when it wanted to appear fiscally responsible, it claimed it would be cheap as chips, costing only £4.4 billion in 2028-29 and easily paid for by undoing some of the recent jump in civil service numbers. These figures, said Johnson, do not compute. The PCS union has suggested it will cost an extra £20bn, found by cutting 70,000 civil service jobs.

In June, the IFS published an estimate of changes in departmental budgets under spending plans for a new parliament. The first point to note is that unlike most departments – housing, transport, local government, etc– the MoD’s budget is ‘protected’, meaning inflation-proofed, alongside health, education, childcare, and overseas development.

The IFS chart below showed that unprotected government departments could take a budget hit of between 1.9% and 3.5%.

Military spending in context

A recent report by the MoD sets Starmer’s commitment to 2.5% military spending in perspective. The MoD budget already tops the NATO spending guideline for member states which was set at 2% of national GDP in 2006.  Britain has met this target every year since as has the USA, the only two members to do so.

The trends below suggest good reasons to consider reducing rather than increasing Britain’s military spending. Key take-aways from the MoD’s Finance and Economics Annual Statistical Bulletin 2024, include the following:

Britain’s current military spending

• UK’s military budget was 2.3% of GDP in 2023, amounting to between $73.5-$75bn.

• The amount the UK spends on the military increased by an average of 2.1% between 2014-2023, representing an extra $13.1 billion.

• In  2023, Britain was the 5th highest military spender in the world according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies; the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranked the UK 6th.

Britain’s record among NATO members 

• Britain is the 2nd largest spender in NATO, after the USA, with the 4th biggest population. UK military spending would be an even higher percentage were it calculated as per capita GDP.

• Total spending by NATO members made up 55% of global military expenditure in 2023, a combined total of US$1,305 billion and a 3% real terms increase on 2022.

• Only 10 of the 32 NATO members met the 2% guideline in 2023.

The longer-term picture

International military spending fell from the mid-1980s, as the Cold War drew to a close. It continued to decline in the 1990s, although UK and US military spending briefly increased as a result of the 1990-91 Gulf War.

The global decline ended in the early 2000s as a result of military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has remained relatively stable since in the UK, France, and Germany. However, US defence spending has varied. As a result of military incursions in the Middle East, it rose sharply to peak at over 5% GDP in 2009, before dropping to 3.23% in 2023.

With few exceptions, military budgets have shown a more sustained increase in recent years. This is a trend which international institutions anticipate is likely to continue.

Global Campaign on Military Spending UK points out that new data from Stockholm shows a growth of 6.8% above inflation in 2023, to $2.44 trillion – the highest level since the end of the Cold War. The UK’s percentage increase was 7.9%, higher than some of the largest NATO members including the US and France.

Military spending is a political choice

Allocating resources to the MoD is a political choice like any other. Questioning priorities should be the concern of us all, and the costs of doing so transparent. As Richard Norton-Taylor puts it: ‘Military strategy should be based on an assessment of genuine risk. Ultimately, however, it is a matter of political choice.’

He uses the example of funding Trident – ‘at a cost of more than £200bn, a figure the MoD does not dispute’ – while deploying British troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without adequate body armour. Starmer’s commitment to Trident also comes without a price tag.

There are many well-documented examples of senior military personnel questioning the effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear weapons system, and of army, navy, and air force officers questioning the priority accorded their branch of the services. Veterans and veteran organisations highlight the lack of support for ex-soldiers, and politicians with military background have expressed concerns about the care of serving soldiers.

The UK government publishes a National Risk Register (NRR), based on National Security Risk Assessments which evaluate the most serious dangers facing the UK. Risks include accidental and malicious threats from abroad and at home, from cyber terrorism to natural disasters and environmental hazards.

The NRR offers a measure against which to assess the role of military, as opposed to other responses to the entirety of threats Britain faces. Military power has little impact on many – such as health pandemics and climate emergencies like floods and heatwaves. These considerations also need to be factored in when assessing how funding is allocated.

The SDR recently invited public contributions to the Review in the form of a call for evidence which closes on 30 September. Ability to participate is limited to short responses to a series of tightly controlled technical questions. There is no provision for – or expectation of – submissions outside the narrowly defined parameters set by the questions.

Restricting the ability to participate in the SDR process is in no one’s interest. The public and the media must be able to interrogate the rationality of the choice to raise military spending before the SDR reports next year. When it does you can be sure it will take us further along the government’s ‘trajectory to 2.5%’.

---

• Carol Turner is a Vice Chair of the Campaign Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and active in Labour CND.
• You can view a Labour Party contemporary motion on the economic impact of raising military spending from Labour CND here.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

 UK

Starmer faces challenge on 2-child benefit cap at Labour Conference

2nd September 2024on Starmer faces challenge on 2-child benefit cap at Labour Conference

“Opposition is needed to these reactionary, unpopular policies of the Keir Starmer government on all fronts.”

By Matt Willgress, Labour Outlook

Left-wing groups such as the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, Momentum and Labour Assembly Against Austerity – plus campaigning organisations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Labour & Palestine – are circulating model motions for Labour Party Conference 2024, which will highlight opposition to some of Keir Starmer’s Government’s most unpopular policy stances.

Chief amongst these will be the refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap, moves to cut Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners, the continual refusal to support the public ownership of water which is so desperately needed, and the disgraceful continuation of arms sales to Israel as it continues its illegal, genocidal war in Israel.

Opposition is needed to these reactionary, unpopular policies of the Keir Starmer government on all fronts – within and beyond the trade union and labour movement. These model motions help to provide an alternative policy framework that would put people, peace and planet first; opposing racism, austerity and war.

Model contemporary motions for Labour Party Conference 2024

END THE TWO-CHILD LIMIT ON BENEFITS

Conference notes:

1. The Guardian reported on 20 August that Rachel Reeves will not use the autumn budget to scrap the two-child limit, indicating a deeply misguided austerity budget.
2. IFS Director Paul Johnson’s Times article on 22 July notes removing the two-child limit would reduce relative child poverty by approximately 500,000.
3. The election of a Labour government on 4/5 July after 14 years of Tory austerity represents a once in a generation opportunity to address child poverty – a critical component of Labour’s Five Missions.
4. The two-child limit on child tax credits and Universal Credit is a major driver of child poverty.
5. 1.5m children live in families affected by the policy, with minority-ethnic families and single-parent families disproportionately affected.
6. Abolishing the limit would cost approximately £1.3bn pa, but the Women’s Budget Group estimates that lifting 250,000 children out of poverty could save roughly £2.3bn in societal costs. Keeping the limit is a false economy.
7. Widespread support across the labour movement to scrap the limit, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour.

Conference believes

1. Labour cannot achieve its objectives without scrapping the two-child limit, which would, as the End Poverty Commission suggests, be the most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty.
2. It’s immoral to treat some children as less deserving than others because of the circumstances of their birth.

Conference calls upon the Labour government to abolish the two-child limit as soon as possible as an urgent priority.

UPHOLD INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR PALESTINIANS

Conference notes:

● On 12 July, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, said “Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse in Gaza… civilians are being pushed into ever deeper circles of hell.”

● On 19 July, the International Court of Justice ruled Israel to be unlawfully occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It demanded Israel withdraws immediately, dismantles illegal settlements and pays reparations. It confirmed Israel is guilty of violating Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.

● The ICJ’s January finding that South Africa’s claims concerning the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide – and related prohibited acts identified in the Genocide Convention – are plausible.

Conference welcomes the decisions of the Labour government to restore UNRWA funding and abandon Tory attempts to block the International Criminal Court from holding Israeli leaders accountable for crimes against Palestinians.

Conference believes Britain has a moral and legal obligation not to assist violations of international law. We must commit to the application of international law, including abiding by rulings and judgements of the ICJ and ICC.

Conference believes the new Government should:

● Support an immediate and permanent ceasefire.

● Impose a full arms embargo until Israel complies with international law.

● End trade with illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation.

Supported by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Labour and Palestine

END THE SEWAGE SCANDAL – BRING WATER COMPANIES UNDER PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

Conference notes that

1. On 11 July 2024, Ofwat announced an average increase of water bills by 21%.
2. On 6 August 2024, Ofwat announced £168m combined fines for water companies guilty of sewage spills.    
3. Sewage spills in England’s waterways and seas more than doubled in 2023 from 2022.
4. Recent citizen testing of rivers found that 75% of rivers in Britain are in poor ecological health.
5. Sewage spills are a consequence of significant under-investment in our Victorian sewage infrastructure.
6. Between privatisation in 1989 and 2023, water companies accrued £60.3bn debts while paying out £53bn in dividends.  

Conference believes that

1. Cleaning up our waterways and seas is crucial for tackling the climate and nature crisis.
2. Profiteering by private companies has created a sewage crisis.
3. Bill payers should not be forced to shoulder the burden of irresponsible under-investment in the sewage system.
4. Water companies should be run to provide services to people, not create profits for shareholders.

Conference calls on the Government to

1. Take the water companies back into public ownership, ensuring that water bills are held down while profits are re-invested in upgrading the sewage system.

FIGHTING RACISM AND THE FAR RIGHT

Conference notes:

• The July/August wave of riots across Britain in which mobs of thugs mounted attacks, including on mosques, asylum seekers’ accommodation, ethnic minority businesses, Muslims, people of colour and police officers;
• mobs were mobilised through channels promoting racism, Islamophobia and anti-migrant bigotry; and
• violence was whipped up by key figures with fascist and extreme right connections, and the mobilisations were afforded legitimacy by key political figures on the far right.

Conference further notes the growing support for the far right in Britain and that:

• Reform UK secured the third highest vote at the July general election, with 4.1 million votes (14.3% UK vote share); and
• the mobilisations had significant backing – YouGov polling in early August reported that 42% considered the ‘protests’ ‘justified’ and 12% considered the ‘unrest at the protests’ ‘justified’.

Conference, aware of such high levels of support for the far right, for racist mobilisations and for violence, is concerned that this wave of racist riots may be just the first such outbreak.

Conference believes our Party should respond to this dangerous development by adopting policies to protect targeted communities and to combat the bigotry being used to justify the attacks. Such policies should include:

• more support (both political and material) for Black and Muslim people to lead community and trade union responses to the appalling violence; and

• clear communications by our Labour Government to challenge the racist, Islamophobic and anti-migrant bigotry being promoted by the media and politicians.

MASS COUNCIL HOUSING PROGRAMME

Conference notes Angela Rayner’s statement that delivery of “affordable” and social homes is her number one priority. Conference also notes concerns expressed across the housing sector about the limitations of the housing reform proposed in the King’s Speech. The National Housing Federation commented that building 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament will not be possible through planning reform alone but must be part of “a nationally coordinated and fully funded long-term plan for housing which places social housing at its core.”

Conference notes the report “Securing the Future of Council Housing,” published July 10th by twenty of England’s largest council landlords, calling for emergency funding. It warns that, “unless something is done soon, most council landlords will struggle to maintain their existing homes adequately, let alone build new homes for social rent.”

Therefore, to improve the quality of existing homes and ensure delivery of new social homes at the scale needed, conference calls upon the government to:

• Grant Fund building/acquisition of 150,000 social rent homes a year, including100,000 council homes;
• Invest in Direct Labour Organisations with well paid, unionised jobs and apprenticeships to deliver this;
• End Right to Buy to stop the loss of homes;
• Fund councils for the full cost of temporary accommodation;
• Review council housing ‘debt’ to fund housing revenue accounts sufficiently to improve the standard of council housing;
• Provide the emergency funding called for by the councils;
• End so-called ‘affordable rent’ and above inflation rent increases.

LONG COVID: INCREASE SUPPORT TO SUFFERERS AND INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH

Conference notes a review paper on long Covid by the Universities of Oxford, Leeds and Arizona, published in August 2024 in the Lancet, reported that long Covid now affects nearly 2% of the UK population, with 71% of long Covid sufferers having the condition for more than a year. Strikingly, the rate of long Covid in the most deprived fifth of the UK population (3.2%) is more than twice as high as that in the least deprived fifth (1.5%).

Furthermore, another recent study by the Universities of Birmingham and Keele of more than 9,000 people, who were in work before the pandemic, has found that people with long Covid are at three times higher risk of leaving employment compared to those without Covid symptoms.

Conference calls upon our Labour Government to:

1) guarantee sufficient funds for research both into identifying the complex causes of long Covid and its effective treatment;

2) ensure that people with long Covid receive benefits to which they are entitled; and

3) introduce legislation requiring employers to provide support for their employees with long Covid and other serious post-viral conditions, as this will benefit both employees and employers alike.

---

• Rules and deadlines for Contemporary Motions for 2024 can be found here. If you wish to submit a motion on behalf of your organisation please do this before 5pm, Thursday 12 September

UK

PCS announce further strike action in G4S dispute

3rd September 2024Leave a Commenton PCS announce further strike action in G4S dispute

“When will G4S get the message that our members will not sit back and accept a pay rise that is 23p above the National Living Wage while G4S rakes in millions?”

Fran Heathcote, PCS General Secretary

By the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

The jobcentre security guards will take another 14 days of strike action in September.

PCS members working as security guards at DWP sites and jobcentres are to take a further 14 days’ strike action in their ongoing dispute over pay.

Over 400 PCS members employed by G4S for the DWP will walk out for fourteen more days during the weeks beginning 9 and 23 September.

They have already taken 22 days’ strike action and are also on strike next week from 27 August.

PCS membership has more than doubled during the dispute and members have been holding well-supported picket lines outside jobcentres, many of which have been forced to close during the strike action, which also includes members of the GMB.

PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote said: “When will G4S get the message that our members will not sit back and accept a pay rise that is 23p above the National Living Wage while G4S rakes in millions?

“Our members risk their safety every day to protect Jobcentre workers and visitors. G4S can afford to pay them a decent wage, so why don’t they?”

---

• This article was originally published by the PCS Union on 23rd August 2024.
• You can follow the PCS on Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram.

 G4S OPERATES IN CANADA AS WELL

Type your email…

 

Suspension of some arms to Israel doesn’t go far enough

3rd September 2024Leave a Commenton Suspension of some arms to Israel doesn’t go far enough

“Inexplicably, it has been announced that certain arms exports to Israel will be exempted. These include the ‘Open General’ licence relating to components for the F-35 combat aircraft”

The suspension of arms export licenses to Israel is welcome but inadequate – and shows that pressure must be maintained, argues the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Yesterday’s announcement by Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, that 30 arms export licenses to Israel will be suspended, does not go far enough. The Foreign Secretary has finally accepted that there is a clear risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations of international law, and this is testament to all those who have campaigned for an end to the arms trade with Israel. However, that pressure must now be maintained. We call on the government to end the exports of F-35 components for planes that will then be sold to Israel.   

Disgracefully, in his House of Commons statement, David Lammy continued to present Israel as a key ally rather than what it is – a state which is currently on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice having already been found guilty of maintaining an unlawful occupation and practicing the crime of apartheid. Despite this, the government has now conceded what was already clear to human rights and legal experts, the international courts, and millions in Britain and around the world. This decision amounts to an unambiguous admission that Israel is engaged in widespread violations of international law and therefore, there is a ‘clear risk’ that arms exported to Israel could be used for that purpose.

Given the previous willingness of Labour leaders – infamously including Keir Starmer – to tolerate and excuse Israel’s violations of international law, there can be no doubt that yesterday’s belated announcement would not have come without the tireless campaigning efforts and enormous public pressure that has been brought to bear. In that context, the decision to suspend some arms licenses is welcome. 

Unfortunately, these measures do not go far enough. Inexplicably, it has been announced that certain arms exports to Israel will be exempted. These include the ‘Open General’ licence relating to components for the F-35 combat aircraft which are exported to Israel indirectly via the USA. Just yesterday, Danish news outlet Information, together with NGO Danwatch, revealed that, for the first time, it has been possible to definitively confirm the use by Israel of an F-35 stealth fighter to carry out a specific attack on an Israeli-designated ‘safe zone’ in Al-Mawasi in southern Gaza, killing 90 people and injuring at least 300. Such attacks are clear violations of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles of proportionality and distinction.  

In his statement, Lammy suggested that suspending these licenses would disrupt the global supply chain for the F-35, which would impact on Britain and other countries. Global supply chains are no excuse for the government to fail to stand by its international obligations to prevent genocide and uphold international law. Even so, it is perfectly possible for the government to amend the Open General licence to prevent the indirect supply of these parts to Israel. 

This decision is a limited but welcome first step. The government must now apply the principles of international law to all export licenses. We will continue to escalate our demand that it does. 

PSC Director, Ben Jamal, says: “It has taken far too long and far too many Palestinian lives for the UK Government to finally accept that there is a clear risk that UK arms exports might be used by Israel to commit serious violations of international law. Shamefully, our government still refers to Israel, a nation perpetrating a genocide, as an ally. Maybe that’s why so few arms export licenses were suspended rather than a total cessation of arms trading with Israel. This is a political decision rather than one based in international law. It completely lacks consistency and disregards the evidence that, for instance, the F-35 jet that British firms supplies parts for is verifiably implicated in massacres in Gaza. The Palestinian solidarity movement has finally shifted the dial on arms exports, but will keep pushing for an end to all British complicity in Israel’s genocidal attacks on Palestinians.”

---

• You can follow the PSC on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.

Groups Urge UK to Go Further After It Suspends 30 of 350 Arms Licenses to Israel

The government did not suspend licenses for F-35 jet parts, sparking criticism from pro-Palestine advocates.

By Sharon Zhang ,

Truthout

September 3, 2024

A young Palestinian stands near a building destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza Strip on August 23, 2024.

Fathi / NurPhoto via Getty Images

The U.K. is suspending 30 arms export licenses to Israel, the country’s foreign minister announced Monday, citing the “clear risk” that Israel would use the weapons to commit grave violations of international law amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza and raid on the occupied West Bank.

Foreign Minister David Lammy told parliament that the decision to suspend 30 of the U.K.’s 350 arms licenses to Israel does not amount to an arms embargo, and added that the government recognizes “Israel’s need to defend itself” — perhaps ignoring that the International Court of Justice has ruled that that is an illegitimate argument.

However, Lammy said that it is indisputable that the U.K.’s weapons could be used by Israel to commit war crimes in Gaza. As the reason for the suspension, the government has cited Israel’s failure to fulfill its duty as the occupying power to provide conditions for survival for Palestinians in Gaza and “credible claims” of Israel’s mistreatment of detainees.

“It is with regret that I inform the House [of Commons] today the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,” Lammy said.

The suspension does not include the U.K.-made components of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. Experts have said that F-35 parts are the U.K.’s largest contribution to Israel’s aggression, making up 15 percent of the jets that Israel has used to bomb the Gaza Strip.

Interview |

Human Rights

The Violent “Othering” of Palestinians Has Political Roots

Anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and political racism overlap in othering of Palestinians, says Palestinian scholar Yasmeen Daher.

By George Yancy , TruthoutSeptember 1, 2024

These jets have been used in attacks that rights groups have said are war crimes; Danish news outlet Information reported on Monday that Israel used an F-35 in an attack on the “safe zone” in al-Mawasi in July that killed 90 people and injured at least 300 others.

Human rights groups and pro-Palestine advocates praised the decision but said that it does not nearly go far enough. Experts have long said that it is the responsibility of other countries to implement an arms embargo on Israel in accordance with international law.

“While yesterday’s decision is of course welcome, it doesn’t go far enough,” said Andrew Stroehlein, Human Rights Watch’s European media director. “The Israeli military’s conduct of hostilities in Gaza makes it all too clear that U.K. arms could be used in grave abuses by the Israeli military.”

Just a partial suspension, then, “shows either a miscomprehension of the law or a willful disregard,” said Human Rights Watch’s U.K. director Yasmine Ahmed. “The secretary of state shouldn’t make exemptions.”

U.K. aid group Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) said that the suspension, which advocates had anticipated after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government took over, was “long overdue,” but still insufficient in terms of putting pressure on Israel to comply with international humanitarian law.

“In particular, the exemption of parts for F-35 jets, reportedly used extensively in Israel’s bombardment, sends a worrying message about the UK’s commitment to international law,” said MAP, raising alarm about Israel’s escalation of violence in the occupied West Bank. “There can be no exceptions or loopholes: the UK must suspend all arms exports to Israel.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license. See further guidelines here.

Sharon Zhang is a news writer at Truthout covering politics, climate and labor. Before coming to Truthout, Sharon had written stories for Pacific Standard, The New Republic, and more. She has a master’s degree in environmental studies. She can be found on Twitter: @zhang_sharon.